Trump had a duty to INSIST Ukraine investigate crimes by americans in Ukraine

[canceled.2021.2]

You don't just investigate somebody without some evidence of wrongdoing. What is the possible crime to investigate?

Funny you guys were fine when it was investigating Trump and Russian collusion

Then all I heard was “we have to investigate”

You leftists are an inconsistent lot

[domer76]

Funny you guys were fine when it was investigating Trump and Russian collusion

Then all I heard was “we have to investigate”

You leftists are an inconsistent lot

Plenty of probable cause, stupid fuck.

CHECKMATE, asswipe.

[ThatOwlWoman]

You don't just investigate somebody without some evidence of wrongdoing. What is the possible crime to investigate?

Hillary.

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Oh word? What did he do that apparently broke the law?

Biden never turned down a bribe in his life. THINK

[Mason Melchizedek]

The fake news press twisted this around and said trump ordered Ukraine to "dig up dirt on a political rival".

He can't black mail them,nice try asswipe

[Text Drivers are Killers]

And Trump isn't? Fucking moron.

Biden bragged about interfering with a foreign Government. Fucking moron.

Yes indeed. There is in fact a video of joe biden bragging about that.

[Text Drivers are Killers]

That suspicious (D) following their names.

Never fails. Owl Trollop says she has me on ignore and yet she responds to all my threads. HAHAHA

[Text Drivers are Killers]

He can't black mail them,nice try asswipe

Blackmail??? HAHAHA. Trump has a duty to tell ukraine "When americans come to your country and break your laws, you damn well better investigate or there will be consequences.".

[Mason Melchizedek]

Blackmail??? HAHAHA. Trump has a duty to tell ukraine "When americans come to your country and break your laws, you damn well better investigate or there will be consequences.".

Nice try!But that isn't what happened

[Flash]

Funny you guys were fine when it was investigating Trump and Russian collusion

Then all I heard was “we have to investigate”

You leftists are an inconsistent lot

You make unwarranted assumptions that a person is a "leftist" because he does not defend everything Trump does.

But in the Russian case there were many (100?) contacts with Russians by Trump campaign staff which they lied about. That created the motive to investigate Russian interference which turned out to be true indicting 19 Russian agents, Manaforte, Cohen..... I never suspected any Russian collusion because they would not be dumb enough to actually collude with Americans if they wanted to hurt Clinton.

[canceled.2021.2]

You make unwarranted assumptions that a person is a "leftist" because he does not defend everything Trump does.

But in the Russian case there were many (100?) contacts with Russians by Trump campaign staff which they lied about. That created the motive to investigate Russian interference which turned out to be true indicting 19 Russian agents, Manaforte, Cohen..... I never suspected any Russian collusion because they would not be dumb enough to actually collude with Americans if they wanted to hurt Clinton.

Since when is having contacts with Russians against the law leftist?

[LV426]

We have to investigate to find out

So you have no proof, you're just relying on a hunch. The same hunch that steered you into supporting a reality TV show host grifter. OK Boomer.

[LV426]

Biden never turned down a bribe in his life. THINK

But you have no proof. So you're just relying on your hunch. The same hunch that led you to support Trump. So...

[Earl]

Jason Chaffetz: Why Schiff's whistleblower claims at Trump impeachment hearing are impossible to believe
Jason Chaffetz
By Jason Chaffetz | Fox News

"Schiff ends impeachment hearing insisting he doesn’t know whistleblower

Rep. Adam Schiff sticks to his story that he doesn't know the whistleblower

Americans had a front-row seat for Day One of impeachment inquiry hearings in the House on Wednesday. But missing from the testimony on Capitol Hill was the “witness” who started it all. Six grueling hours of testimony by two hearsay witnesses shed little light on the allegations against President Trump.

Neither George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for Europe nor William Taylor, the charge d’affaires in Kiev had firsthand information and both clearly had an ax to grind over their differences with the president on foreign policy.

More interesting than their testimony was the complete whitewashing of any reference to the original whistleblower, whose second-hand allegations so deeply concerned House Democrats that they opened an official impeachment inquiry – a process they had three times explicitly rejected in previous House votes.

DAVID BOSSIE: IMPEACHMENT CASE AGAINST TRUMP IS FALLING APART – DEMOCRATS WANT TO HURT HIM IN 2020 ELECTION

What was so compelling about the testimony of this witness that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had long held that impeachment should only proceed as a bipartisan effort, would abandon her position and pursue a one-sided inquiry?

Americans still don't know.

In the first day of testimony, there was barely any mention of the original witness or the transcript of the call that lies at the center of the allegations.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff went to great lengths to suppress any reference to the witness during the first day of testimony, even going so far as to claim (laughably) that he doesn't know who the witness is.

Let’s think about that for a moment. We know that the whistleblower met with Schiff’s STAFF. Are we supposed to believe that the Congressman stepped out of the office when he arrived or hid in another room when the whistleblower meeting took place?

The notion that Adam Schiff doesn't know the identity of a whistleblower so many in Washington can already identify by name is laughable.

Is Schiff trying to tell us that his staff told him, “We’ve just met with the whistleblower.” To which he replied, “don’t tell me his name! I don’t want to meet him! But let me use everything he just told you to impeach the president.” Who could believe that? Such a scenario is not only ridiculous, but it would also be irresponsible.

Remember, this is the same Schiff whose promises of "ample evidence of collusion in plain sight" were repudiated by the final Mueller Report. He is hardly a beacon of credibility, but the notion that he doesn't know the identity of a whistleblower so many in Washington can already identify by name is laughable.

He Who Must Not Be Named is not expected to testify at all. That's totally unacceptable.

The American people cannot be expected to accept a partisan impeachment inquiry in which only one side calls witnesses, exculpatory evidence is suppressed, and the primary witness cannot be identified, much less questioned. Particularly given the fact that the whistleblower is no whistleblower, having no firsthand knowledge of the allegations. But he or she does have firsthand knowledge of the machinations within the White House designed to thwart a sitting president. That testimony is relevant.

We know what justice looks like. This is not justice. The House Intelligence Committee is neither an impeachment committee nor a Grand Jury.
More from Opinion

Tucker Carlson: It’s never been clear what Dems believe is Trump’s impeachable offense. Now we know. It’s THIS
Leslie Marshall: Trump, impeachment and the future – Here's what I tell my Democratic friends
Andrew McCarthy: Elections, not impeachments are how we resolve policy disputes in this country

With great fanfare, Speaker Pelosi initiated the formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump in September promising that, "no one is above the law." She claimed the president's actions "have seriously violated the Constitution."


That’s not what viewers saw on this first day of public testimony. If there are violations of the law or the Constitution by this president, these witnesses couldn't testify to it. Their accounts were based on hearsay, opinion and media reports.

If anyone has been treated as though they are above the law, it is this so-called whistleblower."
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/schi...jason-chaffetz

[Jarod]

What other types of "Corruption" did Trump ask Ukraine to look into? Or is that place so pure, Biden was the only concern?